Recommended Posts

ok i/we have probably read hundreds of post about the new ruling. i have not seen one reply from immigration what this 400,000 is being used for, is it an emergency fund one can, use, for hospital treatment, then it will be * sorry you have under 400,00 on yer bike* it cost 55,00 to get cremated here, (close i can walk it he he) stil i suppose i wont care as i will be cinders.just i have not seen one official, directive coming from IO (or maybe i have missed something ?? )

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It’s a minimum balance; as simple as that. Currently if you drop below 800K during the 60day/3mth ‘seasoning’ period you won’t get the extension. The same will almost certainly apply for the new minimum balances.

If you do drop below the minimums you could in theory — as now — leave/re-enter and start the extension process from scratch.

You need more than 800K to retire. You need at least 800K plus your annual expenditure, and easy access to other funds for emergencies. The new rules don’t change that.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I just don't get all these complaints about the new requirements. Note, like many I think it was introduced with little warning etc. Fact is if the the original requirement was to live in Thailand based on retirement or whatever was 800k in Thai bank for 12 months of every year. Fine. Good deal. I need to put 25usd in Thai bank ....OK. Hells bells its not sheep stations.

All the 400K in the bank rule does, is make 12-mo seasoning on that much money. Likewise with the 800K for 5 mo now (or 6, according to some). Seasoning is waived for agent-applications. The "money in the bank" used by agents is only there for a few hours. That is why the changes only affected seasoning, so immigration's agent-partner-racket would not be affected. Imagine the guys at the top getting a cut of all the action below - you think they will give that up?

The only losers are honest applicants and maybe some loan-sharks who were competing with immigration's partner-agents, while not providing immigration with a cut of their profits.

49 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As I understand it, the 400K in the bank is used to satisfy immigration requirements.

Am I missing something?

You are correct. The 400K cannot be used in an emergency, or you could either lose your permit to stay for violation of terms, or be unable to renew the following year (we don't know how it will be enforced). That money serves no purpose that I can see, other than to protect immigration's agent-partners' businesses from competition.

4

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I just don't get all these complaints about the new requirements. Note, like many I think it was introduced with little warning etc. Fact is if the the original requirement was to live in Thailand based on retirement or whatever was 800k in Thai bank for 12 months of every year. Fine. Good deal. I need to put 25usd in Thai bank ....OK. Hells bells its not sheep stations.

If you can't afford that find a cheaper deal elsewhere.

Have already. Called Australia.

2

2

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All the 400K in the bank rule does, is make 12-mo seasoning on that much money. Likewise with the 800K for 5 mo now (or 6, according to some). Seasoning is waived for agent-applications. The "money in the bank" used by agents is only there for a few hours. That is why the changes only affected seasoning, so immigration's agent-partner-racket would not be affected. Imagine the guys at the top getting a cut of all the action below - you think they will give that up?

The only losers are honest applicants and maybe some loan-sharks who were competing with immigration's partner-agents, while not providing immigration with a cut of their profits.

You are correct. The 400K cannot be used in an emergency, or you could either lose your permit to stay for violation of terms, or be unable to renew the following year (we don't know how it will be enforced). That money serves no purpose that I can see, other than to protect immigration's agent-partners' businesses from competition.

Why would/should it need to be used in "an emergency"... All this reference to 800k or 400k ongoing. What the? Convert it to USD ... Its sweet nothing for heavens sake. Why would Thailand even want someone scraping along on not being able to meet minimal requirements.

There is some rationale/logic in that view. That being as a way to put a stop to the circumvention WITH the cooperation of IM officers ?

But for those expats caught in the situation where with limited choice they agree to extortionist "loans" as a way to satisfy the new enforcement of financial requirements could be only to the satisfaction of the Agents and Thai Imm.

In real terms it only opens the book on a new and more lucrative continuation of pseudo/legit/legit compliance.

In situations where that becomes a reality the winner will be the Agents although with possible co-funding with select IO.

One person I know who has queried his nominal agent about the situation has had confirmation that it will not be a problem due to being "well connected". What he failed to ask is the COST !

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why would/should it need to be used in "an emergency"... All this reference to 800k or 400k ongoing. What the? Convert it to USD ... Its sweet nothing for heavens sake. Why would Thailand even want someone scraping along on not being able to meet minimal requirements.

And in real terms that is the basis of it. As it has been Agents provide the means but not the intended security of the requirements.

I can understand the impact on those who for various reasons have habitually circumnavigated the rules but .....times up.